Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[ABSTRAKBank dalam menjalankan pengelolaan likuiditasnya mempunyai potensikeuntungan dan kerugian yang selalu mengikuti. Untuk mengendalikan risikotersebut perlu suatu proses manajemen risiko yang memadai, mulai dariidentifikasi risiko, pengukuran risiko hingga implementasi mitigasi risiko.Pengukuran risiko likuiditas pada Bank Sinarmas yaitu menggunakan LiquidityCoverage Ratio. Penyediaan likuiditas sangat penting untuk mengantisipasiadanya kebutuhan likuiditas sehingga dapat mengcover kewajiban Bank baikdalam kondisi normal maupun krisis. Namun demikian, penyediaan likuiditastidak boleh tersedia secara berlebihan karena timbul biaya likuiditas yang harusditanggung oleh Bank. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan penetapan limit biayapengelolaan likuiditas yang bersedia di tanggung oleh Bank berdasarkan riskappetite dari management serta batas limit maksimum Liquidity Coverage Ratioharus ditetapkan oleh Bank. Penetapan limit tersebut merupakan hal pentingdalam proses mitigasi risiko agar pendapatan yang hilang karena adanyapenyediaan likuiditas dapat diminimalkan sehingga dapat tercipta peningkatanlaba bagi Bank. Data yang diperoleh dalam penelitian ini merupakan komponendari Liquidity Coverage Ratio Bank Sinarmas selama 3 Tahun (2012-2014).Metode dalam penelitian ini secara kuantitatif. Pada kondisi saat ini BankSinarmas belum melakukan pengelolaan likuiditas jangka pendeknya secaraefektif. Hal ini terbukti dari hasil perhitungan rata-rata Liquidity Coverage Ratioyang masih tinggi yaitu 206.01%. Bahkan pernah tertinggi sebesar 392% padabulan Juli 2014. Regulator menetapkan batas Liquidity Coverage Ratio minimumsebesar 100%. Dengan adanya, penetapan pengelolaan biaya pemeliharaanlikuiditas maksimum dan penetapan limit maksimum Liquidity Coverage Ratiodiharapkan dapat diimplementasikan oleh Bank Sinarmas sehingga dapat terciptapeningkatan laba bagi Bank

---

ABSTRACTBank in carrying out liquidity management always followed with potential gainsand losses. There should be an adequate risk management process to manage theserisks, starting from risk identification, risk measurement to risk mitigationimplementation. Liquidity risk measurement in Bank Sinarmas using LiquidityCoverage Ratio. The providing of liquidity is very important to anticipate liquidityneeds so as to cover the liabilities of the Bank both in normal and crisisconditions. However, the providing of liquidity should not be available to excessliquidity because there will be costs to be borne by the Bank. Therefore, it isnecessary to establish limit liquidity management fee paid by the Bank preparedbased on the risk appetite by management as well as the maximum limit of theLiquidity Coverage Ratio must be determined by the Bank. The limit settingprocess is important in order to mitigate the risk of lost revenue due to theproviding of liquidity could be minimized so as to create an increase in profits forthe Bank. Data obtained in this study is a component of the Liquidity CoverageRatio Bank Sinarmas for 3 years (2012-2014). The method in this research isquantitative. In the current conditions the Bank Sinarmas not do short-termliquidity management effectively. This is evident from the results of thecalculation of average Liquidity Coverage Ratio are still high at 206.01%. Thehighest ever amounted to 392% in July 2014. Regulator set a minimum limit ofthe Liquidity Coverage Ratio at 100%. With the, determination of maximumliquidity management of maintenance costs and maximum limits LiquidityCoverage Ratio is expected to be implemented by the Bank Sinarmas so as tocreate an increased Bank profitability;Bank in carrying out liquidity management always followed with potential gainsand losses. There should be an adequate risk management process to manage theserisks, starting from risk identification, risk measurement to risk mitigationimplementation. Liquidity risk measurement in Bank Sinarmas using LiquidityCoverage Ratio. The providing of liquidity is very important to anticipate liquidityneeds so as to cover the liabilities of the Bank both in normal and crisisconditions. However, the providing of liquidity should not be available to excessliquidity because there will be costs to be borne by the Bank. Therefore, it isnecessary to establish limit liquidity management fee paid by the Bank preparedbased on the risk appetite by management as well as the maximum limit of theLiquidity Coverage Ratio must be determined by the Bank. The limit settingprocess is important in order to mitigate the risk of lost revenue due to theproviding of liquidity could be minimized so as to create an increase in profits forthe Bank. Data obtained in this study is a component of the Liquidity CoverageRatio Bank Sinarmas for 3 years (2012-2014). The method in this research isquantitative. In the current conditions the Bank Sinarmas not do short-termliquidity management effectively. This is evident from the results of thecalculation of average Liquidity Coverage Ratio are still high at 206.01%. Thehighest ever amounted to 392% in July 2014. Regulator set a minimum limit ofthe Liquidity Coverage Ratio at 100%. With the, determination of maximumliquidity management of maintenance costs and maximum limits LiquidityCoverage Ratio is expected to be implemented by the Bank Sinarmas so as tocreate an increased Bank profitability;Bank in carrying out liquidity management always followed with potential gainsand losses. There should be an adequate risk management process to manage theserisks, starting from risk identification, risk measurement to risk mitigationimplementation. Liquidity risk measurement in Bank Sinarmas using LiquidityCoverage Ratio. The providing of liquidity is very important to anticipate liquidityneeds so as to cover the liabilities of the Bank both in normal and crisisconditions. However, the providing of liquidity should not be available to excessliquidity because there will be costs to be borne by the Bank. Therefore, it isnecessary to establish limit liquidity management fee paid by the Bank preparedbased on the risk appetite by management as well as the maximum limit of theLiquidity Coverage Ratio must be determined by the Bank. The limit settingprocess is important in order to mitigate the risk of lost revenue due to theproviding of liquidity could be minimized so as to create an increase in profits forthe Bank. Data obtained in this study is a component of the Liquidity CoverageRatio Bank Sinarmas for 3 years (2012-2014). The method in this research isquantitative. In the current conditions the Bank Sinarmas not do short-termliquidity management effectively. This is evident from the results of thecalculation of average Liquidity Coverage Ratio are still high at 206.01%. Thehighest ever amounted to 392% in July 2014. Regulator set a minimum limit ofthe Liquidity Coverage Ratio at 100%. With the, determination of maximumliquidity management of maintenance costs and maximum limits LiquidityCoverage Ratio is expected to be implemented by the Bank Sinarmas so as tocreate an increased Bank profitability;Bank in carrying out liquidity management always followed with potential gainsand losses. There should be an adequate risk management process to manage theserisks, starting from risk identification, risk measurement to risk mitigationimplementation. Liquidity risk measurement in Bank Sinarmas using LiquidityCoverage Ratio. The providing of liquidity is very important to anticipate liquidityneeds so as to cover the liabilities of the Bank both in normal and crisisconditions. However, the providing of liquidity should not be available to excessliquidity because there will be costs to be borne by the Bank. Therefore, it isnecessary to establish limit liquidity management fee paid by the Bank preparedbased on the risk appetite by management as well as the maximum limit of theLiquidity Coverage Ratio must be determined by the Bank. The limit settingprocess is important in order to mitigate the risk of lost revenue due to theproviding of liquidity could be minimized so as to create an increase in profits forthe Bank. Data obtained in this study is a component of the Liquidity CoverageRatio Bank Sinarmas for 3 years (2012-2014). The method in this research isquantitative. In the current conditions the Bank Sinarmas not do short-termliquidity management effectively. This is evident from the results of thecalculation of average Liquidity Coverage Ratio are still high at 206.01%. Thehighest ever amounted to 392% in July 2014. Regulator set a minimum limit ofthe Liquidity Coverage Ratio at 100%. With the, determination of maximumliquidity management of maintenance costs and maximum limits LiquidityCoverage Ratio is expected to be implemented by the Bank Sinarmas so as tocreate an increased Bank profitability, Bank in carrying out liquidity management always followed with potential gainsand losses. There should be an adequate risk management process to manage theserisks, starting from risk identification, risk measurement to risk mitigationimplementation. Liquidity risk measurement in Bank Sinarmas using LiquidityCoverage Ratio. The providing of liquidity is very important to anticipate liquidityneeds so as to cover the liabilities of the Bank both in normal and crisisconditions. However, the providing of liquidity should not be available to excessliquidity because there will be costs to be borne by the Bank. Therefore, it isnecessary to establish limit liquidity management fee paid by the Bank preparedbased on the risk appetite by management as well as the maximum limit of theLiquidity Coverage Ratio must be determined by the Bank. The limit settingprocess is important in order to mitigate the risk of lost revenue due to theproviding of liquidity could be minimized so as to create an increase in profits forthe Bank. Data obtained in this study is a component of the Liquidity CoverageRatio Bank Sinarmas for 3 years (2012-2014). The method in this research isquantitative. In the current conditions the Bank Sinarmas not do short-termliquidity management effectively. This is evident from the results of thecalculation of average Liquidity Coverage Ratio are still high at 206.01%. Thehighest ever amounted to 392% in July 2014. Regulator set a minimum limit ofthe Liquidity Coverage Ratio at 100%. With the, determination of maximumliquidity management of maintenance costs and maximum limits LiquidityCoverage Ratio is expected to be implemented by the Bank Sinarmas so as tocreate an increased Bank profitability]"

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis pengaruh risiko likuiditas pendanaan terhadap perilaku pengambilan risiko oleh bank umum konvensional di Indonesia periode 2006 ndash; 2015. Risiko likuiditas pendanaan bank tercermin dari jumlah simpanan yang dimiliki oleh bank, sedangkan pengambilan risiko tercermin dari jumlah likuiditas yang diciptakan oleh bank Liquidity Creation. Selain itu, penelitian ini juga ingin melihat apakah terdapat perbedaan pengambilan risiko pada bank besar dan bank dengan tingkat modal penyangga yang tinggi di Indonesia dalam menghadapi tingkat risiko likuiditas pendanaan tertentu.Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa risiko likuiditas pendanaan secara signifikan memiliki pengaruh negatif terhadap pengambilan risiko oleh bank. Tingkat risiko pendanaan yang rendah akan menyebabkan pengambilan risiko yang lebih tinggi oleh bank. Sementara itu, tidak ditemukan bukti yang mendukung perbedaan pengambilan risiko pada bank besar dan bank dengan tingkat modal penyangga yang tinggi di Indonesia dalam menghadapi tingkat risiko likuiditas pendanaan tertentu.

---

This paper aimed to analyze the effect of funding liquidity risk on the risk taking behavior of conventional banks in Indonesia from 2006 ndash 2015. Funding Liquidity risk is reflected in the level of bank rsquo s deposits, meanwhile bank risk taking is reflected in the level of bank rsquo s liquidity creation. In addition, this paper would like to see the difference in bank risk taking behavior in big size bank and high capital buffered bank in response to certain level of funding liquidity risk.

This study concluded that funding liquidity risk significantly affect bank risk taking. Bank having lower funding liquidity risk proven to have higher risk taking behavior. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to support the difference in bank risk taking behavior in big size bank and high capital buffered bank in response to certain level of funding liquidity risk."

"Penelitian ini menganalisis risiko kredit, risiko likuiditas dan profitabilitas Bank Asing di Indonesia pada periode 2009-2018 di mana sejak 2014, Bank Asing diwajibkan untuk memenuhi persyaratan permodalan baru dalam rangka penerapanBasel 3, yakni regulasi Capital Equivalency Maintained Assets (CEMA). CEMA mengharuskan modal Bank Asing untuk ditempatkan pada aset keuangan tertentu, sehingga dana tersebut tidak dapat dipergunakan untuk penyaluran kredit. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan Bank Asing memiliki risiko kredit yang lebih baik (terlihat dari penurunan NPL dan peningkatan CAR), namun mengalami penurunan profitabilitas (terlihat dari penurunan ROA). Selain itu, risiko likuiditas yang diharapkan dapat turut dimitigasi, ternyata mengalami peningkatan (terlihat dari penyaluran kredit yang meningkat dan LDR yang tetap tinggi). Pada Bank Asing BUKU 2, penerapan CEMA tidak memberikan perubahan signifikan bagi penurunan NPL dan perubahan LDR. Pasca penerapan CEMA, risiko kredit pada Bank Asing BUKU 3 lebih membaik sedangkan risiko likuiditasnya lebih meningkat dibandingkan pada Bank Asing BUKU 2. Walaupun demikian, profitabilitas Bank Asing BUKU 2 lebih menurun dibandingkan Bank Asing BUKU 3. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode uji beda mean two sample dengan t- Test.

---

The study is analysing credit risk, liquidity risk and profitability of foreign banks in Indonesia for the period 2009-2018, of which since 2014, foreign banks are required to meet new capital requirements following implementation of Basel 3, which is the regulation of Capital Equivalency Maintained Assets (CEMA). CEMA requires foreign banks to channel their capital into specific financial assets, which resulting the funds cannot be used for credit disbursement. Result of the study shows that foreign banks have better credit risk (shown by lower NPL and increase in CAR), however they experiences lower profitability (shown by lower ROA). In addition to that, liquidity risk which was intended to be mitigated, is actually showing elevated level (shown by continuously increase of credit disbursement while LDR ratio is still showing high). BUKU 2 type foreign banks after CEMA implementation does not significantly have lower NPL nor have change of LDR ratio. After CEMA implementation, credit risk of BUKU 3 trpe foreign banks is better while their liquidity risk is elevated compare to BUKU 2 type foreign banks. On the contrary, profitability of BUKU 2 type foreign banks are lower compare to BUKU 3 type foreign banks. This study is using method of mean two sample difference with t-Test."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat pengaruh struktur pendanaan atau portofolio kredit terhadap PT risiko likuiditas perbankan konvensional. Sampel yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini meliputi bank konvensional yang terdaftar di Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapura, Thailand dan Bursa Efek Filipina (ASEAN-5). Jumlah bank konvensional yang diteliti terdapat 48 bank dengan masa rentan dari tahun 2012 sampai dengan 2017 atau periode enam tahun yang menggunakan Metode regresi Generalized Least Square. Studi ini mengukur struktur pendanaan menggunakan tiga variabel alternatif yaitu Sektor Properti Luas (BPS), Pendanaan Konsentrasi (SPEC), dan Lending Composition Change (LCC). Berdasarkan Hasil regresi, ditemukan dua dari tiga variabel alternatif yaitu BPS dan LCC menampilkan hubungan yang signifikan dan positif dengan risiko likuiditas, sedangkan SPEC variabel menunjukkan hubungan yang juga positif tetapi tidak signifikan. Setelah mengalami kemunduran model keseluruhan, dapat disimpulkan bahwa struktur pendanaan memiliki hubungan positif danberpengaruh signifikan terhadap risiko likuiditas perbankan konvensional di negara-negara ASEAN-5.

---

This study aims to see the effect of credit structure or portfolio on conventional banking risk PT. The sample used in this study includes conventional banks listed in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines Stock Exchange (ASEAN-5). The number of conventional banks studied was 48 banks with a vulnerable period from 2012 to 2017 or a six year period using the Generalized Least Square regression method. This study measures the structure structure using three variables, namely the Property Sector Area (BPS), Concentration Funding (SPEC), and Lending Composition Change (LCC). Based on the regression results, it was found that two of the three variables, namely BPS and LCC, showed a significant and positive relationship with liquidity risk, while the SPEC variable showed a positive but insignificant relationship. After regressing the model as a whole, it can be damaged that the structure has a positive relationship has a significant effect on the liquidity risk of conventional banking in ASEAN-5 countries."

"Tesis ini menganalisis pengaruh risiko kredit dan risiko likuiditas terhadap risiko sistemik pada perbankan di ASEAN-4. Penelitian ini menggunakan dua ukuran risiko sistemik, yakni dCoVaR (Girardi dan Ergun, 2013) dan MES (Acharya, 2010) agar dapat melihat perbedaan pengaruh risiko kredit dan risiko likuiditas terhadap risiko sistemik dengan dua ukuran yang berbeda. Hasilnya, diketahui bahwa risiko kredit dan risiko likuiditas memengaruhi risiko sistemik pada saat distres pasar, akan tetapi risiko kredit dan risiko likuiditas tidak memengaruhi risiko sistemik individual bank. Adapun persamaan temuan pada kedua regresi tersebut adalah bahwa risiko sistemik dipengaruhi oleh kondisi krisis. Temuan ini menarik mengingat pada saat dilakukan analisis untuk setiap negara, hanya risiko sistemik di Filipina dan Thailand saja yang dipengaruhi oleh krisis, sedangkan Indonesia dan Malaysia tidak. Akan tetapi, jika analisis dilakukan serempak ternyata krisis memberi dampak positif signifikan terhadap risiko sistemik individual bank. Kemudian, pada analisis terhadap risiko sistemik saat pasar dalam kondisi distres, risiko kredit dan risiko likuiditas hanya memengaruhi risiko sistemik di Filipina saja. Akan tetapi, jika analisis dilakukan secara serempak, maka risiko kredit dan risiko likuiditas memengaruhi risiko sistemik secara positif signifikan di ASEAN-4.

---

This study examines the effect of credit risk dan liquidity risk on the potential increases in systemic risk of the banking sector in ASEAN-4. Two systemic risk measures, namely dCoVaR (Girardi and Ergun, 2013) and MES (Acharya, 2010) are used in order to evaluate the effect of credit risk and liquidity risk on systemic risk of individual bank and systemic risk when the market is in distress. Result from the regressions show that credit risk and liquidity risk affect systemic risk at the market distress, meanwhile, credit risk and liquidity risk do not affect systemic risk individual bank. That crisis affects systemic risk is found by the two regressions in ASEAN-4.

The result is interesting because when the regression analysis between credit risk and liquidity risk against systemic risk for each country is conducted, only banks in the Philippines and Thailand show the influence of credit risk on systemic risk, but not in Indonesia and Malaysia. However, when the analysis is conducted for all the countries, there is a positive and significant effect of crisis on systemic risk in ASEAN-4. The second analysis is conducted to examine the effect of credit risk and liquidity risk against on systemic risk when the market is in distress. The results show that credit risk and liquidity risk are significantly effects systemic risk at the market distress. However, we do not find this effect in the regression for each country, except in the Philippines."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat pengaruh dari risiko kredit dan risiko likuiditas terhadap profitabilitas perbankan pada masa pandemi COVID-19 pada periode penelitian tahun 2018-2021 dengan sampel penelitian 35 bank yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode analisis linier berganda dan uji parsial (uji-t) dengan rasio ROA, ROE, dan NIM sebagai variabel dependen, kemudian risiko kredit (NPL) dan risiko likuiditas (LDR) sebagai variabel independen dan rasio Equity to Asset, dan Diversification sebagai variabel kontrol. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pada saat sebelum dan selama pandemi, risiko kredit (NPL) berpengaruh negatif dan signifikan terhadap profitabilitas perbankan, kemudian risiko likuiditas (LDR) berpengaruh positif dan tidak signifikan terhadap profitabilitas perbankan.

---

This study aims to see the effect of credit risk and liquidity risk on banking profitability during the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2018-2021 research period with a research sample of 35 banks listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. This research uses multiple linear analysis methods and a partial test (t-test) with ROA, ROE, and NIM ratios as dependent variables, credit risk (NPL) and liquidity risk (LDR) as independent variables, and Equity to Asset, and Diversification ratios as control variables. The results showed that before and during the pandemic, credit risk (NPL) had a negative and significant effect on banking profitability, then liquidity risk (LDR) had a positive and insignificant effect on banking profitability."

"Penelitian ini menginvestigasi pengaruh faktor-faktor pendorong utama Manajemen Risiko Likuiditas (MRL), yaitu aset tak ikuid, core deposit, modal ekuitas, dan komitmen pinjaman perbankan di Indonesia terhadap aset likuid, pinjaman, dan credit line yang merupakan proksi untuk mengukur likuiditas perbankan dengan menggunakan kontrol ukuran bank. Penelitian ini mengambil sampel 99 bank umum di Indonesia pada periode 2006 ? 2011 dan menggunakan metode Ordinary Least Square dalam pengestimasiannya. Dengan adanya krisis keuangan global pada akhir tahun 2008 dan awal tahun 2009, penelitian ini menjelaskan dua hasil, yaitu hasil pada kondisi normal dan krisis. Aset tak likuid mempengaruhi aset likuid pada saat normal dan krisis, serta pinjaman bank pada saat normal. Core deposit mempengaruhi aset likuid bank dan pinjaman pada saat normal dan krisis, serta credit line pada saat normal. Modal mempengaruhi aset likuid pada saat normal, pinjaman dan credit line pada saat normal dan krisis. Komitmen pinjaman mempengaruhi pinjaman pada saat krisis dan credit line pada saat normal dan krisis. Bank besar cenderung memiliki aset likuid terbatas dan memberikan pinjaman dan credit line pada saat normal, tetapi cenderung mengurangi pinjaman dan meningkatkan liquid buffer pada saat krisis.

---

This research investigates the impact of four key drivers of Liquidity Risk Management, which are illiquid assets, core deposits, equity capital, and loan commitments of banking in Indonesia towards liquid assets, loans, and credit line as proxies for bank liquidity measurement with bank size as control. Using 99 samples of commercial bank in Indonesia within 2006 - 2011 and also using Ordinary Least Square method for estimating, this research results some conclusions. Since there is global financial crisis in the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, this research generates two results, which are in normal and crisis condition. Illiquid asset affects liquid asset in normal and crisis condition and loan in normal condition. Core deposit affects liquid asset and loan in normal and crisis condition, and also credit line only in normal condition. Equity capital affects liquid asset in normal condition, loan and credit line in normal and crisis condition. Loan commitment affects loan in crisis condition and credit line in normal and crisis condition. Large bank tends to hold liquid asset in small amount and gives loan and credit line more relative to other banks in normal condition, but tends to reduce loan and increase liquid buffer in crisis condition."

"Penelitian ini memperlihatkan pengaruh risiko likuiditas dan risiko kredit terhadap stabilitas bank umum di Indonesia. Dalam melihat pengaruh kedua risiko tersebut juga terhadap stabilitas bank akan ditinjau juga aspek kepemilikan bank dan kondisi ekonomi. Dengan menggunakan estimasi data panel, ditemukan bahwa risiko likuiditas berpengaruh signifikan terhadap stabilitas bank. Arah pengaruh risiko likuiditas terhadap stabilitas bank ini sangat dipengaruhi oleh kepemilikan bank. Faktor kepemilikan bank memiliki pengaruh signifikan terhadap stabilitas bank baik kepemilikan pemerintah maupun asing. Di sisi lain, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa risiko kredit dan kondisi ekonomi tidak memiliki pengaruh signifikan terhadap stabilitas bank umum di Indonesia.

---

This paper shows the effect of liquidity risk and credit risk to bank stability in Indonesia. In explaining their relationship, we will take bank ownership and economy condition to the account. Using panel data estimation, we find that liquidity risk is significantly affect bank stability. However the direction of the influence is depended on the ownership of the bank. Ownership of bank whether by government or foreign entities has significant effect on bank stability. On the other hand, this paper find no significant impact of credit risk and economy condition on bank stability in Indonesia."

"Penelitian ini memperlihatkan pengaruh risiko likuiditas dan risiko kredit terhadap stabilitas bank umum di Indonesia. Dalam melihat pengaruh kedua risiko tersebutjuga terhadap stabilitas bank akan ditinjau juga aspek kepemilikan bank dan kondisi ekonomi. Dengan menggunakan estimasi data panel, ditemukan bahwa risiko likuiditas berpengaruh signifikan terhadap stabilitas bank. Arah pengaruh risiko likuiditas terhadap stabilitas bank ini sangat dipengaruhi oleh kepemilikan bank. Faktor kepemilikan bank memiliki pengaruh signifikan terhadap stabilitas bank baik kepemilikan pemerintah maupun asing. Di sisi lain, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa risiko kredit dan kondisi ekonomi tidak memiliki pengaruh signifikan terhadap stabilitas bank umum di Indonesia.

---

This paper shows the effect of liquidity risk and credit risk to bank stability in Indonesia. In explaining their relationship, we will take bank ownership and

economy condition to the account. Using panel data estimation, we find that

liquidity risk is significantly affect bank stability. However the direction of the influence is depended on the ownership of the bank. Ownership of bank whether by government or foreign entities has significant effect on bank stability. On the other hand, this paper find no significant impact of credit risk and economy condition on bank stability in Indonesia."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis pengaruh risiko likuiditas dan risiko kredit pada Spread suku bunga dengan menambahkan bank capitalization, bank expenditure, bank size dan business cycle sebagai variabel kontrol dalam penelitian ini. Penelitian ini menggunakan sampel yaitu bank umum konvensional yang terdaftar di Bura Efek Indonesia periode 2012-2016. Pengujian dilakukan dengan menggunakan model regresi data panel dengan metode fixed effect. Hasil penelitian ini menemukan bahwa risiko likuiditas dan risiko kredit berpengaruh signifikan terhadap Spread suku bunga bank pada Bank Umum Konvensional yang terdatar di Bursa Efek Indonesia.

---

This research is aimed to analyze the impact of liquidity risk and credit risk on Bank Interest Rate Spread by adding bank capitalization, bank expenditure, bank size and business cycle as control variable in this research. The sample of this research are conventional bank listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange during the period of 5 years starting 2012 up to 2016. The tests were conducted with panel data regression model with fixed effect method. The results of thid reasearch found that liquidity risk and credit risk significantly influence the bank interest Spread on Convensional Bank listed in Indonesia stock exchange."